The Historical Journal of Massachusetts “Yankee Brutalism: Concrete Architecture in New England, 1957-1977.” Author: Brian M. Sirman Source: Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Volume 44, No. 2, Summer 2016, pp. 2-21. Published by: Institute for Massachusetts Studies and Westfield State University You may use content in this archive for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the Historical Journal of Massachusetts regarding any further use of this work: [email protected] Funding for digitization of issues was provided through a generous grant from MassHumanities. Some digitized versions of the articles have been reformatted from their original, published appearance. When citing, please give the original print source (volume/number/date) but add "retrieved from HJM's online archive at http://www.westfield.ma.edu/historical-journal/. 2 Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Summer 2016 Boston University Law Tower (Sert, Jackson & Gourley, 1963) Sert, Jackson & Gourley also designed the Mugar Library and George Sherman Union on campus, all in the Brutalist style. Photo by the author. 3 PHOTO ESSAY Yankee Brutalism: Concrete Architecture in New England, 1957–1977 BRIAN M. SIRMAN Abstract: During the 1960s and early 1970s, New England departed from architectural traditions and was in the vanguard of the most current (and controversial) style of these decades: Brutalism. While on its surface this style seems inimical to New England architecture, a confluence of economic, political, and social forces rendered it aptly suited to the region at this pivotal time. Concrete buildings served not only functional purposes but also as monuments that both reflected and shaped public perceptions of New England. Moreover, Brutalism’s fluctuating esteem during the past half-century resulted as much from changes in social and political culture in the region as from the evolution of architectural tastes.1 * * * * * The 1960s brought about an architectural revolution in New England. During this decade, conventional styles, forms, and materials were challenged by an avant-garde aesthetic that could be unsettling within the context of time- honored streetscapes. New concrete megastructures began appearing beside Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Vol. 44 (2), Summer 2016 © Institute for Massachusetts Studies, Westfield State University 4 Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Summer 2016 iconic white clapboard churches and brownstone townhouses. Hardscape plazas eclipsed centuries-old town greens as gathering places. Picturesque buildings, representing centuries of history and tradition, increasingly made room for symbols of modernity. From vast urban-renewal complexes to rural single-family dwellings, concrete buildings of varying sizes and functions began to dot the landscape from Connecticut to Maine. In some ways, these changes seem inimical to the New England ethos. After all, this is a region that has long celebrated its rich history and conscientiously preserved its historic structures and spaces.2 Yet during the 1960s and early 1970s, New England became the nation’s leading center of Brutalism—an architectural style that was both aesthetically and philosophically rooted in the modern movement. Notwithstanding its sharp contrasts with the region’s traditional historic buildings, Brutalism was inherently well suited to New England during this epoch. The introduction and proliferation of the style accompanied a host of other changes—economic, demographic, and political—taking place at the time. Modern concrete buildings not only reflected these changes but also catalyzed further transformations. Thus, while on the surface Brutalism appears at odds with New England’s cultural identity, careful analysis reveals a direct connection between the political, economic, and social circumstances in the 1960s and 1970s New England and the material, aesthetic, and symbolic qualities of concrete architecture. While Brutalist buildings were designed to serve functional purposes, they also became prominent symbols and agents of change, simultaneously reflecting and shaping public perceptions of New England. DEFINING BRutalISM First, what is Brutalism? While the term is both complex and controversial, the style can best be thought of as architecture in the raw.3 Buildings are stripped of applied ornament. Muscular forms and crude textures are emphasized. Structural elements and construction processes are exposed— even accentuated—rather than hidden. While Brutalist architecture was not exclusively concrete, this material was better suited to the style than brick, metal, or glass since it could reveal itself as a building’s structure and simultaneously show the process of formation, with the grain of wooden molds often permanently embedded in the cured concrete. Concrete also is an eminently plastic material, which can be molded into daring geometric forms. In so doing, it would stand in contrast to the cubic abstraction of many other strands of modern architecture, which concealed structural elements Yankee Brutalism: Concrete Architecture in New England, 1957–1977 5 behind sleek glass skins and suppressed creativity within plain boxes. As an intensely philosophical movement (not just an aesthetic one), Brutalism could be disturbing to those unused to its formal aggressiveness. Randall Ott, Dean of Architecture at Catholic University of America, quipped that Brutalism “was not about making buildings that looked like stuffed teddy bears that appealed to all.” Instead, “It was a fairly austere, fairly confrontational style.”4 Brutalist architects sought first of all to celebrate authenticity by exposing the raw materials and structural elements of their buildings. Perhaps more importantly, they strove to create an architectural expression of the imperfectability of man, the human condition, and the postwar reality. As architect Gerhard Kallmann wrote, this architecture embraced “violence, anti-rationality, and non-direction systematically pursued”—concepts that were championed by younger architects who obstreperously opposed the rationalism of the previous generation of modernism.5 As the early Brutalist architect Peter Smithson put it, they sought to create an environment that would “give form to our generation’s idea of order.”6 Thus, the principal characteristics of Brutalist architecture were durability and strength (inherent in the use of concrete as a primary building material), innovation and boldness (exemplified in often unconventional geometric forms), and honesty and authenticity (implicit in the straightforward revelation of structure and construction). Getting its start in Britain in the 1950s, Brutalism made its way to North America by the early 1960s, where it established its firmest foothold on this continent in New England. As home of some to the world’s most prestigious architectural training grounds (chief among them the design schools at M.I.T., Harvard, and Yale), the region was accustomed to embracing new architectural ideas. A host of architects working in the Brutalist style were affiliated with these schools as faculty members (such as Paul Rudolph, Pietro Belluschi, and José Luis Sert) or as students or recent graduates (including Araldo Cossutta, I.M. Pei, and Walter Netsch). New England’s strength as a center of education is not merely coincidental to the development of Brutalism in the region. The education sector accounted for the majority of Brutalist buildings commissioned during the 1960s and 1970s. The presence of so many colleges and universities, paired with increasing student enrollments, compelled the region’s postsecondary institutions to embark on unprecedented building programs.7 Brutalism was well suited to these conditions. First, concrete was an economical choice, costing less than steel throughout the 1960s.8 Secondly, the style was regarded as durable, and thus able to withstand decades of use (and abuse) by college students—a population not renowned for its gentle touch. Thirdly, it 6 Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Summer 2016 displayed an avant-garde aesthetic. This visual expression of innovation, then as now, was welcomed by institutions seeking to situate themselves in the intellectual vanguard. Finally, the presence of high-profile Brutalists (or Brutalist sympathizers) in top positions at architecture schools and, often, at the head of building committees, predisposed these institutions to concrete buildings. For instance, Paul Rudolph designed Yale’s Art & Architecture Building (1963) while serving as Dean of Architecture. Similarly, José Luis Sert designed Harvard’s Holyoke Center (1958–65), Peabody Terrace (1963–64), and Science Center (1973) while leading the Graduate School of Design. Other New England schools were quick to follow this stylistic lead (see table below). Not only colleges but also K–12 institutions embraced Brutalist architecture. From the rhythmic concrete lintels of Providence’s Classical High School facade (Harkness & Geddes, with Walter Gropius, 1963–70) to the gaping circular voids inside the Phillips Exeter Academy Library (Louis I. Kahn, 1967–72), Brutalist school buildings stood as durable and arresting monuments to the enduring importance of education in New England—a region that could Yankee Brutalism: Concrete Architecture in New England, 1957–1977 Yale Art & Architecture Building, New Haven, CT (Paul Rudolph, 1963) Opening to wide acclaim in 1963 and reviled by the end of the decade, only to be meticulously restored and renovated in